"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice? pt 2

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Philosophically, the problem with preventing "bad builds" is that in doing so one will inherently diminish, if not outright sabotage, variation. Variation is one of the principle enjoyments of any game, let alone a game with character customization. Lack of variation implicitly removes player agency.  Without opportunity cost, choices don't matter. No bad builds ensures lack of opportunity cost; therefore, lack of variation/player agency.

 

This is just nonsense. How do you get from "no bad builds" to "less variation"? The PoE attribute system as it is designed(Ignoring balancing right now) is meant to add variation by allowing you to create classes that focus on various sub-types. It sounds more like you're trying to squeeze as many clever-sounding words into your comment to distract from the fact that you actually don't have an argument.

 

 

See this thread.

 

For a choice to matter, something has to be forgone (see: opportunity cost). A character with maximized stats can only perform class functions marginally better than one with minimized attributes. This is what all the fuss over attributes are right now. In many cases, they are distinctions will little difference. This is exacerbated by several attributes having demonstrably poorer values for all classes, and that the usefulness of certain attributes are directly limited by the explicit role intended for certain classes. This sums up to a false choice. It's the illusion of choice. If you been less threatened by vocabulary, you might have gleaned that from my prior comment.

[sparklecat]

 

 

Philosophically, the problem with preventing "bad builds" is that in doing so one will inherently diminish, if not outright sabotage, variation. Variation is one of the principle enjoyments of any game, let alone a game with character customization. Lack of variation implicitly removes player agency.  Without opportunity cost, choices don't matter. No bad builds ensures lack of opportunity cost; therefore, lack of variation/player agency.

 

This is just nonsense. How do you get from "no bad builds" to "less variation"? The PoE attribute system as it is designed(Ignoring balancing right now) is meant to add variation by allowing you to create classes that focus on various sub-types. It sounds more like you're trying to squeeze as many clever-sounding words into your comment to distract from the fact that you actually don't have an argument.

 

 

See this thread.

 

For a choice to matter, something has to be forgone (see: opportunity cost). A character with maximized stats can only perform class functions marginally better than one with minimized attributes. This is what all the fuss over attributes are right now. In many cases, they are distinctions will little difference. This is exacerbated by several attributes having demonstrably poorer values for all classes, and that the usefulness of certain attributes are directly limited by the explicit role intended for certain classes. This sums up to a false choice. It's the illusion of choice. If you been less threatened by vocabulary, you might have gleaned that from my prior comment.

 

That's an argument for number tweaking the attribute modifiers, not for the necessity of allowing bad builds.  Your "cost" with no impotent builds is that you do not have enough points to be good at everything; you have to choose.

[Wintersong]

 

But mostly the problem I have is that there's no meaningful consequences for dumping a stat to 3. If you build a fighter with 3 Might, you shouldn't be receiving a 10% bonus to base damage (especially with a melee weapon). You should be receiving a significant penalty to damage. Your Greatsword should do less than its base.

This is the second time today that I've liked something Stun wrote (well, this part of it)... Something weird is definitely going on.

 

But yeah, this is something I absolutely agree with, and it's something I've been saying for some time. The problem is that attributes give bonuses/penalties in a very linear manner when the penalty for lowering a stat from the average range should be increasingly more severe the lower you go.

 

There's nothing really wrong with min-maxing and it should remain possible, but it should carry a price. Dumping a stat should mean that you're handicapping your character in some aspect (beyond just "oh dear, my accuracy is slightly below average") and you need to make significant adjustments in your playstyle to compensate.

 

This system reminds me of Vampire The Masquerade, despite not having played in a loooong time. It has 9 attributes (3 physical, 3 social and 3 mental) that for humans range from 1 (broadly weak) to 3 (broadly strong). If you have one dot in Strength, you roll 1d10 for Stregnth tests. Two dots? 2d10. The only penalty is having less dice to roll to attempt stuff if you dump the attribute.

 

The system is quite different than PoE's, of course. But is a good example of another system that doesn't substract but adds. Altough I must say that the attribute numeric base in PoE is in 0 instead of 1, which seems a bit weird.

 

On topic, there will be always be bad builds. By pure comparison and metagaming, some builds will just be worse than others. As I understand it (as ignorant as I am), the idea should be to prevent hopeless builds. Like bringing a bicycle to a Nascar race. Then in the race some cars will be worse than others but at least all of them are cars. So PoE system should prevent the players from "accidentally" building a bicycle when they are supposed to build a car. Easier said than done?

[Seari]

Unless the developers intended for attributes to have marginal impact. That would mean there are no bad builds indeed, only classes, with minor talents for flavor.

[Tartantyco]

 

 

Philosophically, the problem with preventing "bad builds" is that in doing so one will inherently diminish, if not outright sabotage, variation. Variation is one of the principle enjoyments of any game, let alone a game with character customization. Lack of variation implicitly removes player agency.  Without opportunity cost, choices don't matter. No bad builds ensures lack of opportunity cost; therefore, lack of variation/player agency.

 

This is just nonsense. How do you get from "no bad builds" to "less variation"? The PoE attribute system as it is designed(Ignoring balancing right now) is meant to add variation by allowing you to create classes that focus on various sub-types. It sounds more like you're trying to squeeze as many clever-sounding words into your comment to distract from the fact that you actually don't have an argument.

 

 

See this thread.

 

For a choice to matter, something has to be forgone (see: opportunity cost). A character with maximized stats can only perform class functions marginally better than one with minimized attributes. This is what all the fuss over attributes are right now. In many cases, they are distinctions will little difference. This is exacerbated by several attributes having demonstrably poorer values for all classes, and that the usefulness of certain attributes are directly limited by the explicit role intended for certain classes. This sums up to a false choice. It's the illusion of choice. If you been less threatened by vocabulary, you might have gleaned that from my prior comment.

 

That's just a matter of changing a few numbers. This is a beta. During the beta, balancing takes place. The current figures are not release candidate numbers. This is not an argument that substantiates your claim, it is simply evidence that you cannot do basic maths.

[Danathion]

 

 

What I'm getting at is why you're assuming that going under a certain amount is "dumping" a stat and means your character is handicapped in that area.  Especially if you're pushing for a non-linear scale, what the zero point is matters.

 

What I'm saying is that going to the very bottom should mean your character is handicapped in that area.

 

This would contradict the design goal: no bad builds. The whole design is that however you place the attribute points, you'll still have a successful character because the base class is already built for success, for you.

 

No, it wouldn't. It would just mean that your character is handicapped in that particular area, but is more capable in other areas. Adjust your playstyle to match. The whole point of the "no bad builds" concept is that the other attributes can be useful too, which wasn't the case in the BG series.

 

--

 

Sorry guys, unfortunately I'm leaving for work now and I can't continue this right now. I'm planning to start a new thread about diminishing returns and other related stuff later, because I've been having the same discussions in several places and frankly I think a lot of people just don't really understand the concept and its repercussions (not referring to you specifically).

 

Let me just confirm that I'm understanding what you want properly - increasingly severe penalties as you lower attribute scores below some (presently undefined) average amount, and initially steep benefits from raising scores above average that eventually plateau?

 

(now with not very good graph included!)

 

 

Yes, I understand too, but it's fundamentally opposed to the devs' design goals. There should be no need for handicapping because there should be no dump stats.

 

The problem, if it is a problem, is PoE's attribute system does not do what people expect an attribute system to do - it's not meant to have that level of impact on your class. Even having penalties would not make a vast difference because the classes are already optimally built to succeed in whatever role you might wish to play them - no 'bad builds'.

 

Personally, no, I don't think it does add variety - by definition there are options denied to us. Again personally, the fun thing about BG is making an imperfect character and despite the imperfections - succeeding. The thing that makes people love the companions in BG is that, in some cases, your hero couldn't succeed without them - they make up for what your character lacks.

 

If the attributes were combined and renamed as I've suggested it would solve a lot of problems, (even if I do say so myself, and yes, it's just my opinion).

[Tartantyco]

Personally, no, I don't think it does add variety - by definition there are options denied to us.

 

 

Substantiate your claim.

[Yonjuro]

 

 

No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.

 

 

  This isn't a useful comment. Why do you think it's a bad idea? 

 

(1) Do you want people to inadvertently build a bad character? 

(2) Do you think that it isn't possible?

(3) Do you think it necessarily means that the attributes can't have a large enough dynamic range?

(4) Some other reason?

 

As it is, you're adding noise to the discussion. Most of the discussion revolves around something like point 3 (which remains to be seen). Point 1 is ridiculous. Point 2 is clearly not true.  Maybe you have an actual 4th point that would add to the discussion. Do you or not? 

 

It is possible, just look at the attribute system that is now. No bad builds means minimum character customization, attributes have negligible effect, which makes race and culture pointless as well. Basically no bad builds means no builds. Well there's the cosmetic aspect of course.

 

The attribute system is overly complicated while being bland( what's with the percentages). You can't even describe your character with the current attributes, because they're missing charisma and strength equivalent. If Might is strength then every caster has to be a muscleman or has to forfeit spell damage.

Having damage, healing and spellpower on one attribute means that every character will max the same thing, every character will be able to move that boulder   and it will make battlemages and cleric characters way stronger than the ones that focus on either melee or spells instead of on both. Not that any of this matters if the attributes aren't changed to be more impactful.

 

A lot of spells are boring and confusing. Mirror image increases deflection instead of absorbing a number of hits. There's like a dozen spells that do the same thing, increase Deflection.

 

Spells don't scale per level, which will make them useless at higher levels, also the reason why there are so many duplicates(wizard's duplicate, mirrored image, displaced image, minor missiles, bounding missiles).

 

There are no immunities, the main thing I liked about BG2's combat system.

 

Interrupt mechanic affects melee attacks from what I understand, confusing and unnecessary.

 

I love ciphers and paladins!

 

/end rant

 

 

 

 Hint: if someone tells you that you are adding noise to the discussion and your response ends with "/end rant" you are still adding noise to the discussion.

 

 The gist of what you wrote seems to be a restatement of what I called item 3.

 

 You seem to be under the impression that stats have minimal impact now (which is correct) and that they can't be made to have impact by increasing their range w.r.t. the baseline numbers for each class, which, as far as we know, is incorrect (and, indeed, is one of the stated tuning objectives for the beta).

 

Do you have a point other the one that I just said buried in your previous rant?

[Danathion]

 

 

No bad builds means minimum character customization, attributes have negligible effect, which makes race and culture pointless as well. Basically no bad builds means no builds. Well there's the cosmetic aspect of course.

 

 

More nonsense detected. Substantiate your claims.

 

 

He already did. This forum has gone full retard.

 

 

There are a couple people who, like attention seeking children, bleat out 'why' whenever anyone expresses an opinion. The thing is everyone is entitled to have, and express, an opinion - whether or not we believe it to be valid - and don't require to justify it to anyone.

[Seari]

 Hint: if someone tells you that you are adding noise to the discussion and your response ends with "/end rant" you are still adding noise to the discussion.

 

 The gist of what you wrote seems to be a restatement of what I called item 3.

 

 You seem to be under the impression that stats have minimal impact now (which is correct) and that they can't be made to have impact by increasing their range w.r.t. the baseline numbers for each class, which, as far as we know, is incorrect (and, indeed, is one of the stated tuning objectives for the beta).

 

Do you have a point other the one that I just said buried in your previous rant?

Here you go buddy:

 

The attribute system is overly complicated while being bland( what's with the percentages). You can't even describe your character with the current attributes, because they're missing charisma and strength equivalent. If Might is strength then every caster has to be a muscleman or has to forfeit spell damage.

Having damage, healing and spellpower on one attribute means that every character will max the same thing, every character will be able to move that boulder   and it will make battlemages and cleric characters way stronger than the ones that focus on either melee or spells instead of on both.

 

A lot of spells are boring and confusing. Mirror image increases deflection instead of absorbing a number of hits. There's like a dozen spells that do the same thing, increase Deflection.

 

Spells don't scale per level, which will make them useless at higher levels, also the reason why there are so many duplicates(wizard's duplicate, mirrored image, displaced image, minor missiles, bounding missiles).

 

Interrupt mechanic affects melee attacks from what I understand, confusing and unnecessary.

[Yonjuro]

 

 Hint: if someone tells you that you are adding noise to the discussion and your response ends with "/end rant" you are still adding noise to the discussion.

 

 The gist of what you wrote seems to be a restatement of what I called item 3.

 

 You seem to be under the impression that stats have minimal impact now (which is correct) and that they can't be made to have impact by increasing their range w.r.t. the baseline numbers for each class, which, as far as we know, is incorrect (and, indeed, is one of the stated tuning objectives for the beta).

 

Do you have a point other the one that I just said buried in your previous rant?

Here you go buddy:

 

The attribute system is overly complicated while being bland( what's with the percentages). You can't even describe your character with the current attributes, because they're missing charisma and strength equivalent. If Might is strength then every caster has to be a muscleman or has to forfeit spell damage.

Having damage, healing and spellpower on one attribute means that every character will max the same thing, every character will be able to move that boulder   and it will make battlemages and cleric characters way stronger than the ones that focus on either melee or spells instead of on both.

 

A lot of spells are boring and confusing. Mirror image increases deflection instead of absorbing a number of hits. There's like a dozen spells that do the same thing, increase Deflection.

 

Spells don't scale per level, which will make them useless at higher levels, also the reason why there are so many duplicates(wizard's duplicate, mirrored image, displaced image, minor missiles, bounding missiles).

 

Interrupt mechanic affects melee attacks from what I understand, confusing and unnecessary.

 

 

 

Ok. So, no?

[Tartantyco]

 

There are a couple people who, like attention seeking children, bleat out 'why' whenever anyone expresses an opinion. The thing is everyone is entitled to have, and express, an opinion - whether or not we believe it to be valid - and don't require to justify it to anyone.

 

This is a discussion forum, not a posting-opinions-unchallanged forum. If you need to have a little cry because you're unable to support your opinions, go do that somewhere else.

[Vold]

After than giving it a second thought, we may be ****ting out of the potty.

 

First of all, all the build diversity based on attributes of games like BG, NWN... was not exactly due to the impact of it on basic traits: AC, thac0, etc; But what really did the difference was the following:

• Several feats had a base attribute requirement, this in NWN also affected multiclassing (pre-requisites of some prestige classes ).
• Attribute modifier affected various skills directly, NWN at least.
• Equipment's base attribute requirement.

Besides, in PoEt the attributes don't even increase upon leveling.

 

So, the point is build diversity is this game is not based on attributes at all; it does not matter really, whether if they increase the impact the attributes have on the basic traits or not; in the end the build diversity will remain the same.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Vold

[Danathion]

 

 

There are a couple people who, like attention seeking children, bleat out 'why' whenever anyone expresses an opinion. The thing is everyone is entitled to have, and express, an opinion - whether or not we believe it to be valid - and don't require to justify it to anyone.

 

This is a discussion forum, not a posting-opinions-unchallanged forum. If you need to have a little cry because you're unable to support your opinions, go do that somewhere else.

 

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

Someone's already suggested that you have a problem comprehending the English language, perhaps you should spend some time elsewhere.

[Tartantyco]

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

 

That's just a completely unreasonable argument. Anything will be limited by the definition of this argument, hence it completely negates itself, as no system can be created that isn't limiting by your definition.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

[Yonjuro]

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

 

 It doesn't necessarily mean that.

 

 If, e.g.,  you can build a wizard with bad direct damage spells (but presumably extra good, say, AoE spells as a result) and then (on purpose) you play this character using direct damage spells, you have a handicapped character because your play style isn't optimal for your build. Enjoy. 

[CatatonicMan]

No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.

 

If it can be implemented in a workable way, it's a better idea than the whole "islands of playable builds in an ocean of crap" system that most RPGs tend to result in. 

 

What we don't need is a system where there are no bad builds because there are no meaningful differences between the builds. We also don't need a system where all builds are equally good.

Edited August 26, 2014 by CatatonicMan

[CatatonicMan]

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

Someone's already suggested that you have a problem comprehending the English language, perhaps you should spend some time elsewhere.

 

If you want to handicap yourself, don't spend the attribute points. That seems to be allowed so far.

[Matt516]

People are really getting lost in the minutia though, and are failing to understand what Obsidian was trying to do with this attribute system. I personally feel like there would be much less fuss if Obsidian had chosen abstracts such as "Minor, Lesser, Standard, Greater, Major", etc. while keeping mechanical the values hidden. As Obsidian does not have intentions of allowing attributes to be increased with level, the player doesn't necessarily need to understand the degree of abstraction--only that it exists and what trend that the distinction implies.

 

I'd actually really, really like this. Not having the mechanical values hidden, but changing from numerical attributes to descriptive ones. 

 

Take MIG as an example. Your proposed change would basically reduce it to 5 gradations. Since everyone seems to think MIG needs some buffs to boni, let's just assume we increase the range from 0-60%. Then you have "Minor/Lesser/Standard/Greater/Major" Might (name it whatever you want) that give boni of 0/15/30/45/60% to damage and healing. This would eliminate unnecessary gradation, allow for somewhat more natural and "role-playing-esque" stats, and not really have any downsides that I can think of. It would also distinguish PoE from the vast majority of other RPGs out there (without screwing the mechanics up at all), which would be cool.

[Danathion]

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

 

That's just a completely unreasonable argument. Anything will be limited by the definition of this argument, hence it completely negates itself, as no system can be created that isn't limiting by your definition.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

 

 

No, really, I think this is a reading comprehension and general language skills problem. That you cannot comprehend the argument does not invalidate it.

 

Obviously, no system will allow all the choices some (not me personally), might wish it to. That's so obvious, it's really not worth stating. The issue is that this system does not allow choices that another system does (me, personally, I don't have a problem with that - it's the way the devs want it to be).

 

The devs have said: 'no'. 'No you can't build a flawed character in PoE as you can in DnD'. 'No' means less choice - in comparison to systems, to which this system will be compared. 

 

For your reference :

 

no

nəʊ/  

 

     determiner: no

not any.

 

verb (used with object)

to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of.

 

 

 

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

 

 It doesn't necessarily mean that.

 

 If, e.g.,  you can build a wizard with bad direct damage spells (but presumably extra good, say, AoE spells as a result) and then (on purpose) you play this character using direct damage spells, you have a handicapped character because your play style isn't optimal for your build. Enjoy. 

 

 

We're talking about a handicapped character, not a handicapped player - presumably he has good reasons for wanting his character to be the way he wants it to be and will play it to it's best advantage.

 

The point is, that even without any attributes modifying your AoE spells your mage will still be successful. Perhaps not as efficient, but the base class build - over which the player has no control - does not allow you to fail. Enjoy.

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

 

 It doesn't necessarily mean that.

 

 If, e.g.,  you can build a wizard with bad direct damage spells (but presumably extra good, say, AoE spells as a result) and then (on purpose) you play this character using direct damage spells, you have a handicapped character because your play style isn't optimal for your build. Enjoy. 

 

 

We're talking about a handicapped character, not a handicapped player - presumably he has good reasons for wanting his character to be the way he wants it to be and will play it to it's best advantage.

 

 

 

 Precisely, that's why the (non-handicapped) player can choose to play against type (or, as CatatonicMan pointed out, don't spend all of the points in the first place).

 

 

 

The point is, that even without any attributes modifying your AoE spells your mage will still be successful. Perhaps not as efficient, but the base class build - over which the player has no control - does not allow you to fail. Enjoy.

 

 

 Fair enough - that's why specific feedback such as "I would prefer the starting character attributes to be X rather than Y so that if I choose to handicap my character by not spending all of my points I can have that option" would be useful feedback for the developers (and the 500 post bitchfest that we got in the previous thread and are on our way to here is not useful).

 

The point of the beta is to get things like that right - specific actionable feedback helps to do that. "Ugh - magic box not work" does not help. 

[Danathion]

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

Someone's already suggested that you have a problem comprehending the English language, perhaps you should spend some time elsewhere.

 

If you want to handicap yourself, don't spend the attribute points. That seems to be allowed so far.

 

 

As I understand it, some smart people have done some maths and have proven that a base classes build, without attribute modifiers applied, is by no means handicapped. This is, in fact, by design. What you start with is already optimised for success and the attribute system, at present, does not have enough impact that neglecting an attribute would do significant harm - if any - to the success of the character.

 

Indeed doubling the effect of all the attributes, will not change the fact that the base classes have been designed to prevent failure. The attributes only tweak efficiency - doubling them will allow for more efficiency, but it's not going to produce a monumental change because the attributes aren't designed to.

 

But, I may have misunderstood.

 

 

@Yonjuru as I said, which started all this - that is contrary to the design goal. The devs don't want it to be possible to have a character that is in anyway handicapped. I doubt suggesting that it should be possible will change their minds, when from the beginning they've said: 'no'.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Danathion

[Yonjuro]

...

 

@Yonjuru as I said, which started all this - that is contrary to the design goal. The devs don't want it to be possible to have a character that is in anyway handicapped. I doubt suggesting that it should be possible will change their minds, when from the beginning they've said: 'no'.

 

 

 Source?

 

 

 I think the design goal was more to have a wide variety of good builds that play differently rather than to protect players from themselves.

 

Source:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1398195

[Monte Carlo]

 

No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.

 

 

  This isn't a useful comment. Why do you think it's a bad idea? 

 

(1) Do you want people to inadvertently build a bad character? 

(2) Do you think that it isn't possible?

(3) Do you think it necessarily means that the attributes can't have a large enough dynamic range?

(4) Some other reason?

 

As it is, you're adding noise to the discussion. Most of the discussion revolves around something like point 3 (which remains to be seen). Point 1 is ridiculous. Point 2 is clearly not true.  Maybe you have an actual 4th point that would add to the discussion. Do you or not? 

 

 

Hey, Doctor Spock, it's called hyperbole and I dug exactly what the dude was saying.

[Mayama]

Making a system that has bad builds is just wrong from a design perspective. AD&D had no bad builds if you played the pen and paper version because your ****ty strength as fighter was balanced out with the role play options that max INT gave you. Bad builds in pen and paper AD&D only existed if your Game Master was bad. That doesnt work in a computer game because the role playing part is reduced to a minimum. D&D in general is a anti-role play system because everything they introduced in later editions was counter productive to role playing. All that class hobbing etc. their was no role playing explanation for it and it was combat centered to the max. Look at any role playing game that is not build around combat like call of cthulhu or world of darkness. They have no bad builds because not beeing good at combat does not automaticaly mean ****ty character.

 

So PoE is a computer RPG and like I said the role playing is reduced to a minimum. You just cant simulate a good game master. All that is basicaly left is combat which means its the only thing characters need to be good at. So why for freaking f*** sake design the classes in a way that  makes them possibly bad at combat? Its the only real obstacle for your characters in the game. Theirs no reason to design, lets say a fighter in a way so hes not good at fighting. Its not that far away from AD&D as some people here think.

 

In AD&D:

 

- you made a fighter

 

- maxed the attributes that the game system forces you to max

 

- and select your specialization 

 

In PoE

 

-you select a fighter

 

-select your specialization

 

The only REAL difference between the two system is that PoE removes a forced intermediate step.

 

Creating a system that can produce characters that are useless in combat does not make sense in a system that is all about combat. You shouldnt compare PoE with a system like BG which copied tons of stuff of the AD&D rule books no matter if it fits a computer game or not. Compare it to something like all those JRPG/Strategy games like final fantasy tactics. Do you see a useless build in those games? No because they are all build for the only purpose that a computer RPG offers and that is combat. Bad builds aka no combat orientated builds dont fit the concept so why even let player make them. If I choose a fighter, why should I be able to make it so he is not good at fighting when fighting is all that he will do in the first place? 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Mayama